- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:50:21 +0100
- To: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-10-30 15:39, Michael Sweet wrote: > Julian, > > This might be a case of what-is-defined vs. what-is-used, but in my experience user agents/clients don't support multiple WWW-Authenticate headers and often do not look past the first challenge in the value. Multiple challenges in one header field: <http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc/httpauth/#multibasicunknown2> (fail for everyone except Safari and Konqueror) Multiple header field instances: <http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc/httpauth/#multibasicunknown2mf> (seems to work interoperably) > Given that the current p1-messaging draft says that senders MUST NOT repeat headers (section 3.2.2) and that WWW-Authenticate is not listed as an exception like Set-Cookie, I think it would be appropriate/safe to drop the "or if more than one WWW-Authenticate header field is provided" part in p7-auth. <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-24.html#rfc.section.3.2.2.p.2>: "A sender MUST NOT generate multiple header fields with the same field name in a message unless either the entire field value for that header field is defined as a comma-separated list [i.e., #(values)] or the header field is a well-known exception (as noted below)." So WWW-Authenticate does not need to be listed as exception because it *does* use the list syntax. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 14:50:55 UTC